PDA

View Full Version : Franchise Tag In the NBA?



Anon
02-15-2011, 07:37 AM
STEIN_LINE_HQ
Rising belief around NBA that some sort of franchise tag on way, along w/Melo's open lust for extension by June 30, changing tune out there
1 minute ago via ÜberTwitter (from Marc Stein twitter)

I am curious what everyone thinks about the NBA adopting a franchise tag in the new CBA. After the Lebron debacle last year and Melo madness this year it seems to me that the franchise tag would solve a lot of these problems. At least teams losing their franchise player would be guaranteed major compensation.

What do you think?

tcav701
02-15-2011, 07:58 AM
I love the idea.

The ONLY reason you should be able to go over the "soft" cap is to resign players and sign draft picks.

Bulls_fan90
02-15-2011, 08:23 AM
Helps all the small market teams. Works against the large market teams.

JasonJohnHorn
02-15-2011, 09:04 AM
LOVE IT!!!!!

I think it would help distrubute talent more evenly across the league.

aussie
02-15-2011, 09:30 AM
i dont understand?

RaJAxTWa
02-15-2011, 09:39 AM
after wut miami did it wouldnt be fair to start one now

Raph12
02-15-2011, 11:30 AM
after wut miami did it wouldnt be fair to start one now

This... Maybe if they do a redraft with each team able to retain 1 player currently on their team.

Anon
02-15-2011, 11:38 AM
after wut miami did it wouldnt be fair to start one now

I'll bet Denver thinks it would be fair. Miami is the whole reason for a franchise tag. You cannot continue to have superstars leave teams with them receiving no compensation. It should have cost Miami big time in draft picks to sign James.

AntiG
02-15-2011, 11:52 AM
The franchise tag needs to be gotten rid of in the NFL. If the team is not able to negotiate a contract extension with the player and the player wants to leave, they should not be given the right to force him to stay. The current system works because it rewards the player for signing an extension with the same team. The only thing that really should be gotten rid of is the sign and trade for a draft pick, which allows the player to get their cake and eat it too. If you really want to help out teams that can't keep their player, start having a supplemental draft pick system. If they lose an elite tier FA, they get a 1st at the end of the round. If its mid tier, they get a late 2nd.

This way, if a bunch of players want to get together as FAs, they will sacrifice their salaries in order to do so, instead of doing a sign and trade deal.

Pierzynski4Prez
02-15-2011, 12:13 PM
I'll bet Denver thinks it would be fair. Miami is the whole reason for a franchise tag. You cannot continue to have superstars leave teams with them receiving no compensation. It should have cost Miami big time in draft picks to sign James.

Didn't they give up up like 4 1st rounders to both Cleveland and Toronto? 2 a piece?

PhillyFaninLA
02-15-2011, 12:20 PM
Personally I think the franchise tag should be illegal (literally illegal).

I say this because you negotiate a contract and fulfill it. So you can negotiate a contract or become a free agent which is fair. But having someone be able to say I know you fulfilled a deal we both agreed on but I'm not going to give you a choice on where you play next year despite our original agreement.

Da Knicks
02-15-2011, 12:27 PM
Any form of Slavery is wrong, no matter how much money is involved. This kind of crap even mentioned is wrong, esp for a league in the U.S.

Atticus Finch
02-15-2011, 12:29 PM
Personally I think the franchise tag should be illegal (literally illegal).

I say this because you negotiate a contract and fulfill it. So you can negotiate a contract or become a free agent which is fair. But having someone be able to say I know you fulfilled a deal we both agreed on but I'm not going to give you a choice on where you play next year despite our original agreement.

Yeah I agree 100%. Just because it sucks for a franchise to lose a star player doesn't mean they should be able to force the player to stay there.

utahjazzno12fan
02-15-2011, 12:31 PM
The franchise tag needs to be gotten rid of in the NFL. If the team is not able to negotiate a contract extension with the player and the player wants to leave, they should not be given the right to force him to stay. The current system works because it rewards the player for signing an extension with the same team. The only thing that really should be gotten rid of is the sign and trade for a draft pick, which allows the player to get their cake and eat it too. If you really want to help out teams that can't keep their player, start having a supplemental draft pick system. If they lose an elite tier FA, they get a 1st at the end of the round. If its mid tier, they get a late 2nd.

This way, if a bunch of players want to get together as FAs, they will sacrifice their salaries in order to do so, instead of doing a sign and trade deal.

No reason for an extra 2nd round pick really since those picks don't make teams and you already can invite them to camp to fight for a spot. It has little value.

koreancabbage
02-15-2011, 12:34 PM
yes, it helps keeps star players in small markets.

Heater4life
02-15-2011, 12:55 PM
You guys fail to realize this would also restrict the transition of quality roles players throughout the league. Teams that are willing to overpay will restrict a given quality player every year. Being as NBA contracts arent over the top to begin with. Also, this has an effect on all teams. The NBA talent pool is far less deep than in the NFL, limting movement is limiting progress. The Knicks franchise for example, would be forever doomed as they have been unsuccesful drafting for almost a decade.

Why dont teams focus on keeping their stars by actually having a game plan and building around them. Like.....

OKC- they have cap space young talent. kept durant.

MIA- they made many deals spanning three years in order to aquire cap space to build around wade

CHI- they also dealt pieces to have cap room to build around rose

NY- didnt have luck drafting, so they went for free agency

L.A.L- traded for gasol, kept kobe.

Teams with solid front offices keep their star players. They dont deal just to deal, they have a game plan and they keep their players.

AKAYaReal
02-15-2011, 12:59 PM
As mad as some may be at Miami and/or Lebron, it was ALL in fair practice, a practice that should be kept in place. Once you add this tag, you really are no longer a Free Agent. We have a restricted free agency which gives you ample time to build a winning franchise around said player. Now if you cant produce this franchise and this star player feels he would like to move to another time, whether it be for winning purposes, money, or because it is a favorite team or local (closer to family or home town) then they should be able to.

If I am a player playing for a small market or even big market team and have been with this team for 7-8 yrs of my career and this team cant make it to the conference finals or even playoffs, why should be I be chained to this team any longer?

Cleveland had a lot of yrs to put quality players around Lebron (and dont say they did because if that was the case they wouldnt have the worst record on top of having the record of the worst losing streak ever in basketball).

I may not agree with more than a certain amount of quality players all playing on the same team but if they paid their dues on their former teams to come up short and choose to leave then that team should wisely trade that player when they dont sign the extension.

IndyRealist
02-15-2011, 01:02 PM
Personally I think the franchise tag should be illegal (literally illegal).

I say this because you negotiate a contract and fulfill it. So you can negotiate a contract or become a free agent which is fair. But having someone be able to say I know you fulfilled a deal we both agreed on but I'm not going to give you a choice on where you play next year despite our original agreement.

Big salary executives regularly sign non-competition clauses, stating that should they leave their company they are not allowed to work in a certain area, or for a competitor, for x years. If you sign a contract with a no-compete in it, then you're agreeing to those terms. Companies regularly do this because those execs become privvy to trade secrets and know your company inside and out. They could do serious damage should they go to a competitor with those secrets.

The same can be said of an NBA player, who learns all of your playcalls, the strengths and weaknesses of your players, etc. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with a franchise tag, I don't really have an opinion yet. But this happens every day in the business world.

AKAYaReal
02-15-2011, 01:03 PM
You guys fail to realize this would also restrict the transition of quality roles players throughout the league. Teams that are willing to overpay will restrict a given quality player every year. Being as NBA contracts arent over the top to begin with. Also, this has an effect on all teams. The NBA talent pool is far less deep than in the NFL, limting movement is limiting progress. The Knicks franchise for example, would be forever doomed as they have been unsuccesful drafting for almost a decade.

Why dont teams focus on keeping their stars by actually having a game plan and building around them. Like.....

OKC- they have cap space young talent. kept durant.

MIA- they made many deals spanning three years in order to aquire cap space to build around wade

CHI- they also dealt pieces to have cap room to build around rose

NY- didnt have luck drafting, so they went for free agency

L.A.L- traded for gasol, kept kobe.

Teams with solid front offices keep their star players. They dont deal just to deal, they have a game plan and they keep their players.

Exactly! How bout they start putting in qualifications for good GM's that really know how to manage a team. Cleveland is crying but yet they went and fired their head coach and GM before we even officially hit free agency. That says a lot about the front office of that team and that they mad bad moves in managing the team.

Heater4life
02-15-2011, 01:04 PM
Its easy to say "so no one does what Miami did" but you guys werent talking much about the Heat 3 years ago. When Miami traded Shaq for Shawn Marion, then when the following year traded Marion for Jermaine O'neal so that we'd have an expiring deal in 2010. You guys didnt see the sacrifice Miami made when they were limited to short term F.A deals so that they wouldnt have any contracts cutting into 2010. Or when we signed James Jones to a contract with a buy-out clause for 2010.

Point is, those were losing seasons/ mediocre seasons. Where a team risked losing their star D-Wade because they had a plan and were sticking to it. Even if it wouldve blown up in Miamis face, at least they would be in a good position to make moves in the future. Its all about the right front office.

justinnum1
02-15-2011, 01:05 PM
I like it.

Atticus Finch
02-15-2011, 01:18 PM
Big salary executives regularly sign non-competition clauses, stating that should they leave their company they are not allowed to work in a certain area, or for a competitor, for x years. If you sign a contract with a no-compete in it, then you're agreeing to those terms. Companies regularly do this because those execs become privvy to trade secrets and know your company inside and out. They could do serious damage should they go to a competitor with those secrets.

The same can be said of an NBA player, who learns all of your playcalls, the strengths and weaknesses of your players, etc. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with a franchise tag, I don't really have an opinion yet. But this happens every day in the business world.

What you're describing is a little bit different. If you agree to the terms of a contract of course you're obligated to follow them, but a franchise tag is not part of the contract, it comes after the fact. Not to mention a non-competition clause only prevents the employee from working somewhere else in the same field, it doesn't force them to stay with the company for another year.

PhillyFaninLA
02-15-2011, 01:19 PM
Big salary executives regularly sign non-competition clauses, stating that should they leave their company they are not allowed to work in a certain area, or for a competitor, for x years. If you sign a contract with a no-compete in it, then you're agreeing to those terms. Companies regularly do this because those execs become privvy to trade secrets and know your company inside and out. They could do serious damage should they go to a competitor with those secrets.

The same can be said of an NBA player, who learns all of your playcalls, the strengths and weaknesses of your players, etc. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with a franchise tag, I don't really have an opinion yet. But this happens every day in the business world.


Fair point but as you said they are aware of the non compete and agree to it when signing a contract. When an NBA player signs a contract they are doing no such thing. The franchise tag forces them into a situation they may not want to be in and never agreed to.

ccugrad1
02-15-2011, 01:21 PM
Would love to see the franchise tag in EVERY major professional sport. Just because someone puts the franchise tag on you, doesn't mean they can't look elsewhere.

Hellcrooner
02-15-2011, 01:26 PM
I wont support any more (deluxe)SLAVERY rules.

MrfadeawayJB
02-15-2011, 01:27 PM
I think it sounds like a good idea, However the NBA will never do that because free agency accounts for a lot of publicity for the NBA during the summer

MrfadeawayJB
02-15-2011, 01:32 PM
Personally I think the franchise tag should be illegal (literally illegal).

I say this because you negotiate a contract and fulfill it. So you can negotiate a contract or become a free agent which is fair. But having someone be able to say I know you fulfilled a deal we both agreed on but I'm not going to give you a choice on where you play next year despite our original agreement.

How would you feel if the original contract had in it "franchise tag option", similar to a team option in current contracts?

mrker
02-15-2011, 01:41 PM
Gettin rid of the sign and trade is afar better way than TAGS, make the players have to take pay cuts to play together, they want a open FA (which they should get) then hard cap unless draft picks or bird rights(can`t be traded or moved from their draft team) and to all celevand fans ...sorry....but if LBJ want out..... to """"ing bad for you... can`t force him to stay... Look at Logan mankins from the pariots, he should be able to leave if he wants.. and for the idea of sandwich picks for teams every year that lose top tier FA`s ...sounds great, gets more players the chance to make it

F*(&"Next Year"
02-15-2011, 01:45 PM
Without going into all the logistics of it, I would prefer there to be one. I like there tobe parity in the league.

PhillyFaninLA
02-15-2011, 01:53 PM
How would you feel if the original contract had in it "franchise tag option", similar to a team option in current contracts?


If its in an individual contract because its negotiated in then you agree to let it happen so your deciding that it is acceptable and your not being forced at that point.

I would be strongly against it in the CBA (contract between owners, league, and players union).

PhillyFaninLA
02-15-2011, 01:54 PM
Without going into all the logistics of it, I would prefer there to be one. I like there tobe parity in the league.


Go into the logistics. Basically your saying I think there should be one but I won't explain.

Anon
02-15-2011, 02:07 PM
What you're describing is a little bit different. If you agree to the terms of a contract of course you're obligated to follow them, but a franchise tag is not part of the contract, it comes after the fact. Not to mention a non-competition clause only prevents the employee from working somewhere else in the same field, it doesn't force them to stay with the company for another year.

The franchise tag would be part of the new CBA which means the players union would have to agree to it which means by extension all of the players would have agreed to it.

210Don
02-15-2011, 02:09 PM
i dont really know how it works but wouldnt it have been great for the suns last year
they would have franchised amare & they could have tooken one more chance at the title.

PurpleJesus
02-15-2011, 02:28 PM
It would help all teams in the league become more competitive, much like it does in the NFL...a more competitive league is a better league.

DMasta718
02-15-2011, 02:32 PM
If the player lives up to his contract and wants to leave the team, why stop him? I don't think a franchise tag should even be in the NBA. Besides, good luck making the players union agree to that.

icon1914
02-15-2011, 02:44 PM
You guys fail to realize this would also restrict the transition of quality roles players throughout the league. Teams that are willing to overpay will restrict a given quality player every year. Being as NBA contracts arent over the top to begin with. Also, this has an effect on all teams. The NBA talent pool is far less deep than in the NFL, limting movement is limiting progress. The Knicks franchise for example, would be forever doomed as they have been unsuccesful drafting for almost a decade.

Why dont teams focus on keeping their stars by actually having a game plan and building around them. Like.....

OKC- they have cap space young talent. kept durant.

MIA- they made many deals spanning three years in order to aquire cap space to build around wade

CHI- they also dealt pieces to have cap room to build around rose

NY- didnt have luck drafting, so they went for free agency

L.A.L- traded for gasol, kept kobe.

Teams with solid front offices keep their star players. They dont deal just to deal, they have a game plan and they keep their players.

With the exception of LA and Miami you are not really make much of a case for front office brilliance. Durant was a RFA at the end of this year, he could not have left if he wanted to... Rose is the same as Durant... Chicago and OKC have done a great job surrounding them with talent, but they have yet had the option to leave. Not sure why NY is on this list, but hey...

... I'm not for the Franchise Tag for one reason... the league is already set up to keep lottery players with the teams that drafted them for at least seven years before they have an option to freely go where they want. I figure seven years is long enough for a team to create an franchise that the player does not want to leave... if they fail at doing that then they deserve to lose the player.

Why should any player, after compromising at least seven years, be forced to stay somewhere they don't want to be?

kblo247
02-15-2011, 02:48 PM
Hate it.

Don't even give me the helps the small market BS.

It makes a player the equivalent of a servant and takes away from the whole point of them being a UFA. Talented guys have to spend 7 years in a place now basically because of RFA but now they will be made to stick around and stay even when they are unrestricted. That is some communist level bull ****.

If small market teams want to keep their players, pay them and bring in talent to help them win. Don't hold them against their will and take away their choice to leave.

This is more absurd than cutting out the MLE or offering -non-guaranteed deals to basketball players.

Even the parity argument is a BS agenda since the league has always thrived best when a select few teams and markets are doing well since it was created.

Bornknick73
02-15-2011, 02:55 PM
The franchise tag would be part of the new CBA which means the players union would have to agree to it which means by extension all of the players would have agreed to it.

And unless theres a lockout where players cross the picket line it will never happen.

While i understand the problems it fixes i disagree with the moral implications.

Not as a fan of the NBA but just as a human being I think taking free will from anyone in the workplace or any other place is wrong.

If i am contracted to work for you and I work through the duration of my contract the decision to return should be mine and mine alone.

If I wish to stay or to seek emplyment elsewhere It is my human right to do so. No one should have control of your decisions your life in regards to where you live or where you work.

I look at it as "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" and in my opinion if my contract is over denying me my pursuit is wrong whether i want to stay or not. The choice should alway be yours.

I dont like what the players are doing, but i wont support denying them their freedom to control their lives.

You want to control this player movement just give them 4 year contracts and remove opt-out clauses.

Anon
02-15-2011, 03:01 PM
And unless theres a lockout where players cross the picket line it will never happen.

While i understand the problems it fixes i disagree with the moral implications.

Not as a fan of the NBA but just as a human being I think taking free will from anyone in the workplace or any other place is wrong.

If i am contracted to work for you and I work through the duration of my contract the decision to return should be mine and mine alone.

If I wish to stay or to seek emplyment elsewhere It is my human right to do so. No one should have control of your decisions your life in regards to where you live or where you work.

I look at it as "Life, Liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness" and in my opinion if my contract is over denying me my pursuit is wrong whether i want to stay or not. The choice should alway be yours.

I dont like what the players are doing, but i wont support denying them their freedom to control their lives.

You want to control this player movement just give them 4 year contracts and remove opt-out clauses.

This seems to be the main argument against the tag and I am not sure I understand it. A franchise tag does not prohibit a player from being able to leave. It just establishes what a team must give up in order to get the tagged player. In the NFL draft picks are used. This would not work in the NBA since picks outside of the lottery have little to no value. It will be interesting to see if the franchise tag ends up being included in the new CBA what the compensation standards will be. Maybe putting players into tiers like they do in baseball so to sign Lebron the Heat would have had to include a "Type B" player along with the two first round picks.

Again the point is not to keep players from leaving it is to prevent the franchise they leave from being set back a decade if they do.

JordansBulls
02-15-2011, 03:11 PM
Might as well put everything in the new collective bargaining agreement while you can so that if the league is on strike, then when the players need the money they will just come back.

Ty Fast
02-15-2011, 03:11 PM
hate it. the nfl should get rid of it as well.

Sandman
02-15-2011, 03:12 PM
NBA already has 5 consecutive years of restricted free agency, franchise tags would add to that.

Shmontaine
02-15-2011, 04:03 PM
how exactly does this TAG equate to slavery/control??

Players are more than able to take their 7 years of multi-million dollar salaries and go back to school, start a business of their own, whatever... it's a free country, but that doesn't mean people have the RIGHT to play in the NBA and run it as they see fit. it's a company and that's it... don't like how your company operates??, nobody is saying the players can't leave the sport, but they won't give players control over the fate of franchises, which i feel is fine. These guys already make millions...

Btw, how many people in this country have the workplace that these NBA players do?? these guys can negotiate where they want to live in the country, anyone here have that?? they can make millions of dollars and are treated like royalty.. u?? Is it a right in this country to be happy at your job?? it's a job, not a life.. these guys aren't owned, they're hired... Slaves?? that's a joke

Bornknick73
02-15-2011, 05:29 PM
how exactly does this TAG equate to slavery/control??

Players are more than able to take their 7 years of multi-million dollar salaries and go back to school, start a business of their own, whatever... it's a free country, but that doesn't mean people have the RIGHT to play in the NBA and run it as they see fit. it's a company and that's it... don't like how your company operates??, nobody is saying the players can't leave the sport, but they won't give players control over the fate of franchises, which i feel is fine. These guys already make millions...

Btw, how many people in this country have the workplace that these NBA players do?? these guys can negotiate where they want to live in the country, anyone here have that?? they can make millions of dollars and are treated like royalty.. u?? Is it a right in this country to be happy at your job?? it's a job, not a life.. these guys aren't owned, they're hired... Slaves?? that's a joke



In the National Football League, the franchise tag is a designation a team may apply to a player scheduled to become an unrestricted free agent. The tag binds the player to the team for one year if certain conditions are met. Each team has access each year to only one franchise tag (of either the exclusive or non-exclusive forms) and one transition tag. As a result, each team may only designate one player each year as that team's franchise player.

Usually reserved for players of great skill or of high importance to the team, a franchise tag allows a team's manager the privilege of strategically retaining valuable free-agent players while seeking talent through the NFL draft or other acquisitions without exceeding the League's salary cap. A team may also franchise tag a player with 2 or more years left on a contract.

If the designated franchise player elects to play for the team that designated him with the franchise tag, and does not negotiate a contract with another team his one year salary is guaranteed.

If a club withdraws their offered contract the player immediately reverts to an unrestricted free agent.So basically this says when i fulfill my contract they can stop me from becoming a FA.

Is that not what anyone else read? The only way you can get out of it is if THEY chose to take their 1 year deal...

(Which is the average among the top 5 players at the position)

off the table. At which case I become a FA. So lets recap....

I become a FA at the end of my contract, they tag me so I cant be a FA, they force a 1 year contract on the table which is the average salary of a player my level and I am forced to sign or I hold out. But why? Why cant I choose? Why cant I decide the fate of myself and my family?

Because youre gonna lose money!

Im playing for Washington. my contract is up and my family wants to move out West, I want to play for someone else or im just not happy with the team. The day my contract is up the club says "NO" you cant go.

"But im not happy here.."
"No, you cant go, youre my whole franchise and you owe me"
"How do I owe you?"
"I drafted you and gave you millions"
"I played for you and earned those millions"
"We need you to win, and put fans in the seats"
"But we are a losing team, I want to play elsewhere"
" No, you're too important to the team"
"My family wants to live elsewhere"
"No, Im paying you enough youre family can deal with it"
"But I already gave you 6 years"
"Ill lose money, I cant do it"
"But its my life..."
"No, your my franchise player that makes you my asset"

Franchise Tags remove the decision for you and your family and puts it into the hands of the team. A team which you are no longer contractually bound to. What does it solve? All it's really an answer to is the player who wants to leave so he can get paid.

What about the players who just want to win, or the ones who just want to take their families to a better climate or living situation, maybe that player had dreams of playing for a certain team. If a player and his family have the desire, who are we or anyone else to tell them what they can and cant do, where they can and cant go?

And if some of you cant see this then im truely sorry, this world still has a very long ways to go.

But its just wrong to take the life decisions from one man and give them to another. This is how corporate America has warped you. You see a man and you see a asset, I see a man and I see a MAN. I see a skilled man, who gets paid to do what he does. And has every right to do and go where he pleases as long as he is not contractually bound to me.

People have this notion that it is a privilege for a player to be drafted by a team. What about the privilege it is to the team just to have this player? Wheres the respect for the player as a man? You're gonna make countless millions off him and his name yet he should be privileged to work for you and get a fraction of those millions?

And then when he wants to run you say "NO". Youre my asset i cant afford to lose you.

So because a Billionaire might lose money or has to rebuild his team its ok to keep the player against his will? And there WILL be players that want to leave. Some will stay and thats their choice but some will also want to leave.

They should have the right to leave. Its their God given right and a constitutional right and no rich man should have control over it.


Men arent assets to control, last time they were assets that were controlled they were called.....

SteveNash
02-15-2011, 05:33 PM
Franchise tag can not be comparable to the NBA.

NFL teams have 50 man rosters, NBA 10.

NFL salaries vary greatly by position, NBA not so much.

todu82
02-15-2011, 05:38 PM
I like it, would keep a top draft pick in a place like Sacramento or Minnesota longer instead of having them leaving when they become a free agent.

Gambeezy
02-15-2011, 05:45 PM
The Franchise tag is slavery in the modern day. Seriously, imagine if your company didn't allow you to leave because you wanted to go to another company in the same industry. You're not even quitting, you're just waiting for your contract to expire. That's ********.

I'm a Heat Fan so, if anything, I should be for the Franchise tag. If the Franchise tag is implemented, then franchised players better be getting a fat bonus for being chained to their teams. It's ********. I mean, what's the point of even signing a contract for a certain number of years if you're just going to get the franchise tag. I can't believe the voting is so tight either. Do some of you voters even understand the ramifications of franchise tagging?

Shmontaine
02-15-2011, 05:55 PM
So basically this says when i fulfill my contract they can stop me from becoming a FA.

Is that not what anyone else read? The only way you can get out of it is if THEY chose to take their 1 year deal...

(Which is the average among the top 5 players at the position)

off the table. At which case I become a FA. So lets recap....

I become a FA at the end of my contract, they tag me so I cant be a FA, they force a 1 year contract on the table which is the average salary of a player my level and I am forced to sign or I hold out. But why? Why cant I choose? Why cant I decide the fate of myself and my family?

Because youre gonna lose money!

Im playing for Washington. my contract is up and my family wants to move out West, I want to play for someone else or im just not happy with the team. The day my contract is up the club says "NO" you cant go.

"But im not happy here.."
"No, you cant go, youre my whole franchise and you owe me"
"How do I owe you?"
"I drafted you and gave you millions"
"I played for you and earned those millions"
"We need you to win, and put fans in the seats"
"But we are a losing team, I want to play elsewhere"
" No, you're too important to the team"
"My family wants to live elsewhere"
"No, Im paying you enough youre family can deal with it"
"But I already gave you 6 years"
"Ill lose money, I cant do it"
"But its my life..."
"No, your my franchise player that makes you my asset"

Franchise Tags remove the decision for you and your family and puts it into the hands of the team. A team which you are no longer contractually bound to. What does it solve? All it's really an answer to is the player who wants to leave so he can get paid.

What about the players who just want to win, or the ones who just want to take their families to a better climate or living situation, maybe that player had dreams of playing for a certain team. If a player and his family have the desire, who are we or anyone else to tell them what they can and cant do, where they can and cant go?

And if some of you cant see this then im truely sorry, this world still has a very long ways to go.

But its just wrong to take the life decisions from one man and give them to another. This is how corporate America has warped you. You see a man and you see a asset, I see a man and I see a MAN. I see a skilled man, who gets paid to do what he does. And has every right to do and go where he pleases as long as he is not contractually bound to me.

People have this notion that it is a privilege for a player to be drafted by a team. What about the privilege it is to the team just to have this player? Wheres the respect for the player as a man? You're gonna make countless millions off him and his name yet he should be privileged to work for you and get a fraction of those millions?

And then when he wants to run you say "NO". Youre my asset i cant afford to lose you.

So because a Billionaire might lose money or has to rebuild his team its ok to keep the player against his will? And there WILL be players that want to leave. Some will stay and thats their choice but some will also want to leave.

They should have the right to leave. Its their God given right and a constitutional right and no rich man should have control over it.


Men arent assets to control, last time they were assets that were controlled they were called.....


Constitutional Right to play in a professional sport?? what are you talking about?? when men sell themselves on their talent and ability, then yes, they are selling themselves as assets that other teams covet... ALL PROFESSIONALS ARE ASSETS... NOT JUST IN SPORTS.. and again, noone's telling men they can't move here, or can't move there... these guys want their cake and to eat it too... they have plenty of money to live wherever they want, some people are forced to relocate for jobs, what if their family is happy in their current location?? is it their God given right to not be moved?? Please man..

if you want to live somewhere, then move... some people choose life over jobs... that what this is... a JOB... nobody is locking anyone in a room, but if they want to make the millions that they desire, there are rules...

and isn't the franchise tag a one year deal, and the salary isn't the average of all players at their position, it's the average of the TOP 5 players at their position??? not like it's a raw deal for the player

Bornknick73
02-15-2011, 05:57 PM
Constitutional Right to play in a professional sport?? what are you talking about?? when men sell themselves on their talent and ability, then yes, they are selling themselves as assets that other teams covet... ALL PROFESSIONALS ARE ASSETS... NOT JUST IN SPORTS.. and again, noone's telling men they can't move here, or can't move there... these guys want their cake and to eat it too... they have plenty of money to live wherever they want, some people are forced to relocate for jobs, what if their family is happy in their current location?? is it their God given right to not be moved?? Please man..

if you want to live somewhere, then move... some people choose life over jobs... that what this is... a JOB... nobody is locking anyone in a room, but if they want to make the millions that they desire, there are rules...

and isn't the franchise tag a one year deal, and the salary isn't the average of all players at their position, it's the average of the TOP 5 players at their position??? not like it's a raw deal for the player

I truely feel sorry for you. You didnt even read it. I wrote that at the top. Which tells me you just read what you wanted and skipped the rest.

Im talking about the freedom to make my own choice. Too bad you dont understand what choices really mean, Id love to be your boss.

kblo247
02-15-2011, 05:57 PM
how exactly does this TAG equate to slavery/control??

In a league with a smaller player pool, where salaries aren't arranged by position but by tenure in the league, restricted free agency, a season which is 5 times longer than the NFL, and bird rights favoring the current team to deter movement, adding a franchise tag to a guy after he spends 7 or 8 years with a team to finally become unrestricted and forcing him to stay where he doesn't want to be is the definition of being controlling.

If you add a franchise tag you have to remove or limit RFA

Kevj77
02-15-2011, 06:04 PM
NFL players hate it with a passion. NBA players are way bigger divas then football players. I don't see it going over well with the players at all.

nshush
02-15-2011, 06:10 PM
This... Maybe if they do a redraft with each team able to retain 1 player currently on their team.

Hell NOOO! You greedy :p

Atticus Finch
02-15-2011, 06:11 PM
I like it, would keep a top draft pick in a place like Sacramento or Minnesota longer instead of having them leaving when they become a free agent.

NBA players already have to wait at least 7 years before they become unrestricted free agents, how much longer do you want them wait?

Shmontaine
02-15-2011, 06:11 PM
I truely feel sorry for you. You didnt even read it. I wrote that at the top. Which tells me you just read what you wanted and skipped the rest.

Im talking about the freedom to make my own choice. Too bad you dont understand what choices really mean, Id love to be your boss.

sounds like you feel sorry for professional athletes...

what choice are they not able to make?? a choice to not make millions is still a choice...

Jonathan2323
02-15-2011, 06:14 PM
I'll bet Denver thinks it would be fair. Miami is the whole reason for a franchise tag. You cannot continue to have superstars leave teams with them receiving no compensation. It should have cost Miami big time in draft picks to sign James.

We gave Toronto and Cleveland 2 1st round picks each.

I really dont like the franchise tag idea. When a player is a free agent, he should be free to resign or go else where.

Bornknick73
02-15-2011, 06:40 PM
Leave the cap where it is, lower max deals to 15 mil including extensions and remove the players ability to opt out.

Opt-outs are the real reason we are here. If a player signs for 5 years he should stay the 5 years and in the end go where you want. Players shouldnt sign a contract to play 5 but i can tear it up in 3.

OPT-OUTS are the enemy here, an enemy allowed by these knucklehead owners. They sign players to contracts for 6 years with a opt out after 3 and then cry when the player opts out.

Now After 7 years of RFA he wants to tag him. Its the owners fault to begin with. So now they want to adopt a antiquated and morally wrong system to eleviate their own stupidity.

If you sign a 7 year deal the you stay 7 years period! The owners let them out after 3 and then they have to pay them even more than the original deal. How ****ing stupid is this?

It works in MLB because there is no cap. But in a game with cap rules its just ****ing stupid. The owners ****ed themselves and now they want to own the players to make up for their mistake.

Remove opt-out clauses and force the players to live with the decisions they made when they took the money. This will stop this madness.

The owners are crying broke when it is they who constantly put themselves in this position. "

OMG im losing my player!!"

Then you shouldnt have given him a opt out clause stupid!

Im commited to giving you 100 million dollars then you are commiting yourself to me for the full duration of that contract!

The players always have to save these guys from themselves. If you cant run a team and you continually drive it into the ground and players dont want to play for you and youre bleeding money thats your fault as a owner.

Bornknick73
02-15-2011, 06:46 PM
sounds like you feel sorry for professional athletes...

what choice are they not able to make?? a choice to not make millions is still a choice...

And there in lies your problem, you see millions. I can tell you dont have much in the way of moral guidance and you are a blind product of corporate America. And then we wonder what happened to this country. You sold yourself. Thats called a SELL OUT. When you give up your choices in life for money you sold out.

Because if you look at this and just see money then I DO feel sorry for you.

Maybe you should move to Cuba, I think the way they run things there might not be so offensive to you.

Bornknick73
02-15-2011, 07:00 PM
The Franchise tag is slavery in the modern day. Seriously, imagine if your company didn't allow you to leave because you wanted to go to another company in the same industry. You're not even quitting, you're just waiting for your contract to expire. That's ********.

I'm a Heat Fan so, if anything, I should be for the Franchise tag. If the Franchise tag is implemented, then franchised players better be getting a fat bonus for being chained to their teams. It's ********. I mean, what's the point of even signing a contract for a certain number of years if you're just going to get the franchise tag. I can't believe the voting is so tight either. Do some of you voters even understand the ramifications of franchise tagging?

No. They dont. Once its accepted in professional sports how soon before rich men start to implement it in corporate America. Then it trickles down.

The people who are all for it cant see past their team or the money that doesnt belong to them. All they see is dollar amounts. They dont see the right a person has to choose where they live and work. They think just because you pay them millions you own them.

Just goes to show, pay some people a significant amount of dollars and people will let you own them they will give up the freedom of choice. They have the "$2 Ho" mentality and they want free men to go along with it.

People fought and died to eradicate this mentality in our country and yet it still exists.

Free man mentality, some of you should try it sometime.

jimbobjarree
02-15-2011, 09:06 PM
get it done

Shmontaine
02-15-2011, 11:53 PM
And there in lies your problem, you see millions. I can tell you dont have much in the way of moral guidance and you are a blind product of corporate America. And then we wonder what happened to this country. You sold yourself. Thats called a SELL OUT. When you give up your choices in life for money you sold out.

Because if you look at this and just see money then I DO feel sorry for you.

Maybe you should move to Cuba, I think the way they run things there might not be so offensive to you.

Sorry if i don't put pro athletes on a pedestal raised above the rest of us like you... Sorry if you don't know that pro sports is a corporation, and pro athletes are employees... This is corporate America, buddy... and i'm not saying I would be happy with franchise tags if I was a pro athlete, but it's not like the team owns me... i have the constitutional right to walk away from any team/job, it's called quitting... I could get a different job that was more appealing to my personal situation...

Selling out?? are we really going there?? then 9/10 of the country sold out... good for you man, you didn't get a job because you needed money, you got a job because you love working... all us other saps sold out because we needed money... not you

AddiX
02-16-2011, 12:01 AM
I don't think a franchise tag will work in the NBA. Disgruntled NBA players don't tend to play very well. And there is no way the Union would allow the best player on a team to get franchised for one year.

jimbobjarree
02-16-2011, 01:51 AM
I don't think a franchise tag will work in the NBA. Disgruntled NBA players don't tend to play very well. And there is no way the Union would allow the best player on a team to get franchised for one year.

You still cant have an unhappy guy playing for you, but at least teams will be getting more value for them. They could extend them and then trade them, full of value. Would stop players leaving small markets for nothing, or small markets being forced into trading players at a discount due to an expiring contract.

Hellcrooner
02-16-2011, 02:16 AM
Slavery was abolished last time i checked.
There are already enough rules that get your life ruined sticking you up in a place you may not like or that may be bad for your career for 7 full years.
Players dont need more of that.

king4day
02-16-2011, 02:35 AM
There's just not enough players on a team to warrant this. you might have 2-4 free agents per year. Not fair to that player to get underpaid when other teams would overpay for him (Perkins is a good example now).

asomen
02-16-2011, 03:33 AM
Instead of following the footsteps of the NFL (which is in a dispute over this rule as it is)..why not follow the footsteps of the MLB?

Scrap the concept of trading 1st round picks, future draft picks, protected picks, etc. for allstars. No more trading picks for players.

Instead, assign players type A and type B statuses and award the team who loses these players compensatory picks. For example, Cleveland would have received Miami's 1st round draft pick of last year's draft because Lebron left for Miami. That way Miami at least faces some kind of penalty for signing type A free agents.

In addition, you can sign as many type A free agents as first round picks you have. IE, if Miami only had 1 first round pick, they would have only been able to sign Lebron and not Bosh. This will eliminate teams clearing cap space and signing 2 huge contracts in the off season.

sunsfan88
02-16-2011, 03:38 AM
In the NFL franchise tags work because teams hesitate to give up 2 first rd picks.

But in the NBA, if a superstar players get tagged, a team with multiple picks would easily be willing to give up their picks for the said player.

Anilyzer
02-16-2011, 04:22 AM
A franchise tag would eliminate free agency, because you could always franchise a different player every year, and bball teams only have a few star players usually.

In fact, I'd be in favor of a true hard cap, as long as teams were allowed to buy out bad contracts, and also the max years for contracts was reduced; if there's a "hard salary cap", if that's what the owners want is to lock down costs, then the restrictions to free agency should be lifted. That balances it.

I don't think the draft should be based on which team is worst, either.

Actually, that is the worst possible scenario, that the worst teams will get all the best players and then be able to lock them up long term. If teams will be able to lock up players *forever* once they are drafted, then the draft should be completely random. OR there should be no draft, teams have to compete for players right out of school and if they sign somewhere they know they can get franchised.

We shouldn't try to "level" the playing field by knocking down all the tall trees... we want the tall trees to be super tall, and then the other smaller market trees have to grow tall to try and compete

Anilyzer
02-16-2011, 04:26 AM
Instead of following the footsteps of the NFL (which is in a dispute over this rule as it is)..why not follow the footsteps of the MLB?

Scrap the concept of trading 1st round picks, future draft picks, protected picks, etc. for allstars. No more trading picks for players.

Instead, assign players type A and type B statuses and award the team who loses these players compensatory picks. For example, Cleveland would have received Miami's 1st round draft pick of last year's draft because Lebron left for Miami. That way Miami at least faces some kind of penalty for signing type A free agents.

In addition, you can sign as many type A free agents as first round picks you have. IE, if Miami only had 1 first round pick, they would have only been able to sign Lebron and not Bosh. This will eliminate teams clearing cap space and signing 2 huge contracts in the off season.

I don't like that idea either. Teams should be able to majorly rebuild with stars, and not have to compensate other teams, especially if players want to go there and the rebuilding teams haven't strapped themselves with long term bad contracts.

The one other adjustment I'd make is to not allow a team to "extend" a player in the second to last year of the contract.

That would preclude the Carmelo and Lebron situation--everybody would know the player becomes a true free agent after the deal expires, and there is no way to prevent it. So, if the player chooses to stay, it is a *bonus* of loyalty and love for the city and the fans. And if the player leaves they don't feel like they were ripped off.

Just like colleges, they know they get a player for 4 years in football--when the player leaves they don't feel like "Ok, well now Sanchez has left, so USC football has come to an end and the whole city is devastated."

they know it's part of the game so it's still all good fun

Hellcrooner
02-16-2011, 04:36 AM
A franchise tag would eliminate free agency, because you could always franchise a different player every year, and bball teams only have a few star players usually.

In fact, I'd be in favor of a true hard cap, as long as teams were allowed to buy out bad contracts, and also the max years for contracts was reduced; if there's a "hard salary cap", if that's what the owners want is to lock down costs, then the restrictions to free agency should be lifted. That balances it.

I don't think the draft should be based on which team is worst, either.

Actually, that is the worst possible scenario, that the worst teams will get all the best players and then be able to lock them up long term. If teams will be able to lock up players *forever* once they are drafted, then the draft should be completely random. OR there should be no draft, teams have to compete for players right out of school and if they sign somewhere they know they can get franchised.

We shouldn't try to "level" the playing field by knocking down all the tall trees... we want the tall trees to be super tall, and then the other smaller market trees have to grow tall to try and compete

Its much simpler than all that.

NY is making a lot of revenue and getting big benefits?
Cavs are not making enoughgh benefits?

Cavs have Lebron?
Ny Wants Lebron?


NY BUYS the player (lebron) from Cavs for say 100 million dollars because due to that benefits they have, they can afford it.

Then cavs, now have 100 million Dollars, his owner has suddenly turned from LOSES to BENEFITS:

he can use 50 of those 100 millions in BUYING enews kanter and Perry jones from their NCaa teams.

and so on an on and on-

FREE MARKET

Gambeezy
02-16-2011, 04:45 AM
Sorry if i don't put pro athletes on a pedestal raised above the rest of us like you... Sorry if you don't know that pro sports is a corporation, and pro athletes are employees... This is corporate America, buddy... and i'm not saying I would be happy with franchise tags if I was a pro athlete, but it's not like the team owns me... i have the constitutional right to walk away from any team/job, it's called quitting... I could get a different job that was more appealing to my personal situation...


It's not about putting people on pedestals or pro athletes being elevated to holier than thou status. It's about maintaining the freedom of choice for every citizen, no matter what the occupation or social status. It's about a contract being signed and fulfilled based on the years agreed upon within the contract.

You can always walk away from a job in corporate America and get another job within the same industry, so I don't understand your logic there. The Franchise tag aims to disallow you to walk away from your company (team) though you fulfilled your contractual obligation to them. If you want to walk away, you basically have to quit or play overseas? Sounds ridiculous doesn't it?

The only way I could see the Franchise Tag being implemented is if the option to potentially franchise a player was written into the original contract. In this case players would have the foresight to at least see the tag coming at the end of their contract. If they didn't like the possibility, then they should have had their contracts edited in the first place. I see flaws in this system as well, but at least they have a choice in the matter at some point.

NYKalltheway
02-16-2011, 04:58 AM
Its much simpler than all that.

NY is making a lot of revenue and getting big benefits?
Cavs are not making enoughgh benefits?

Cavs have Lebron?
Ny Wants Lebron?


NY BUYS the player (lebron) from Cavs for say 100 million dollars because due to that benefits they have, they can afford it.

Then cavs, now have 100 million Dollars, his owner has suddenly turned from LOSES to BENEFITS:

he can use 50 of those 100 millions in BUYING enews kanter and Perry jones from their NCaa teams.

and so on an on and on-

FREE MARKET

It sounds to people like you speak in another language everytime you say this :D

daboywonder2002
02-16-2011, 03:10 PM
now when i started this same exact topic/thread almost a month ago. everyone was against the franchise tag.

http://www.prosportsdaily.com/forums/showthread.php?t=568191

heathonater
02-16-2011, 03:24 PM
i highly doubt nba players ever agree to a franchise tag. all the time, nfl players hold out or get angry at their teams for using a franchise tag in favor of a long term contract. since the majority of nba players only have a few years to cash in on their abilities, i dont think the players union would agree to a franchise tag when the current system allows them to get long term contracts after their rookie deal expires. if owners try to push the franchise tag in the nba, we could be in for a lengthy lockout.

Arch Stanton
02-16-2011, 03:53 PM
Any form of Slavery is wrong, no matter how much money is involved. This kind of crap even mentioned is wrong, esp for a league in the U.S.

Where do I sign up to be a slave? I'd take the money to be a franchise tag.

Bornknick73
02-16-2011, 04:05 PM
When will anybody recognize it isnt the system?

Its the stupidity of the owners.

Owners are so desperate to have a player that they give him a 6 year deal but let the player dictate when he can get out of it. Opt-Out Clauses. Which owners allowed.

Then the player uses it, puts the team in a bad position and then the team is mad and blames the player when things dont turn out right. Early OPT-OUT clauses are what is ruining the game.

The players want guaranteed contracts? Then let them stay the full duration for them to get a fully guaranteed contract.

Im gonna guarantee you a 6 years 100 milion dollar deal but you can get out of it in 3? Wheres my guarantee you will stay?

The owners have created this mess. They are screaming the players are controlling the League when they gave the players the power to do so by controlling how long they play a contract.

Franchise tags will never fly in the NBA. A disgruntled Franchise NBA player has a bigger effect on a team of 12-15 then a NFL Franchise player has on a team of 53. Youre still gonna have 52 guys who want to win. One disgruntled NBA star player will ruin your season.

When youre drafted you are a restricted FA every year your contract finishes and youre still with that team for your first 6 years in the League.

You get drafted and sign a 3 year deal. 3 years pass. A team offers you a 3 year 50 million deal, you wanna play for that team, the team that drafted you gives you that same 3 year 50 million and you have to stay.

Now another 3 years pass. You've already spent 6 years with the team. You are now a unrestricted FA.

You are free to sign with whoever you want. And your drafting team has no say in where you sign.

They already have control of you for the first 6 years of your career no ifs and or buts.

Now after 6 years you want to play somewhere else, or your family wants to relocate to another part of the country. Or the team is a losing one the last 6 years. Or you want to be closer to your mother. Or any reason a person can want for moving elsewhere.

You honored your 6 year commitment to that team that drafted you. You have earned the right to decide where you go next.

The owners want to deny the players that right with a FRanchise Tag. After 6 years and honoring 2 contracts they still want to try to keep you even if you want to go elsewhere for reasons that should be your own.

So after the sixth year they want to tag you. Picture Sonny in the movie "A Bronx Tale" when he locked the bikers inside the bar and he turned to them and said "Now Youse Cant Leave", this is what the owners want to do.

A Franchise Tag was created for teams to be able to keep their players because of financial reasons pertaining to other teams offering more money.

The top 5 guys in the League at your position average 10 mil a year. So they tag you and give you that same 10 mil a year so you cant complain about money and they try to force you to sign a extension during this one year they held you against your will. And they can do it again the next year too.

And a Franchise Tag is exactly that. A tag that replaces your WILL with money. They buy your right to choose and replace it with money.

So after my 6 years my choice is to move on. A Franchise Tag robs me of this choice and replaces it with money. What if im one of the rare people on the planet where money isnt everything?

So i play 6 years honor 2 contracts and now they want the ability to hold me there for another 2 years even if I want to leave. You can Franchise a player for 2 consecutive years.

Franchise Tags are FORCED CONTRACTS. FORCED 1 YEAR CONTRACTS. Even if you dont want it you are forced to sign it. YES FORCED TO SIGN IT.

If you dont you hold out and get paid ****. So basically the owners are saying "YOU PLAY FOR ME THIS YEAR OR YOU PLAY FOR NO ONE"

If tried several times at the best of my ability to illustrate how wrong this is in America.

I think people care more about the teams and the players then they care about a persons rights under the Constitution. They see Millions where Morals used to be.

Corporate America has robbed us of our ability to see when freedoms are being bought and sold.

But I guess if youre a rich minority athlete they already paid for your rights. They give you money and you give them your right to choose where you live and breathe.

"Who cares where you or your family want to go, I pay you millions, just shut your mouth and play. I dont care where you want to go but im gonna tell you where youre gonna be!" - The Owners

BigBluN'Orange
02-16-2011, 05:19 PM
I agree that franchise tags should be illegal... if franchise tags are in the nba then so should NO trade clauses for players